Union of India v. Devinder Singh

ORDER %

08.07.2011 For orders, see LA.APP.No. 784/2005.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 08, 2011 mm Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . •* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ; : :. . • : 'i % Date ofDeci$Qfl th Lu&, 2O1 + LAAPP784/ZQQ : , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . : • JAMNA Appellant Through Mr L B Rai, Advocate, Mr L S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K SuriI, Advocat, JVIr Anuj Bhandarl, Advocate Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? . Versus UOL&ORS .. . . .. .. Respondenìts •: Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standrng ifl4 J-Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with op r Ms Deepika, Mr Sachir) 1wani ariØ Mr. Siddharth Panda AcfiocateS Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr. B B Sharma Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND + LAAPP 879/2005, LAAPP 880-881/2005, LAAPP 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka) • AND + LAAPP 583/2009, LAAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 604/2009, LA APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010, LAApP784!2005&connected P6e1of19 ff. . .. . LA APP 79/2010, LA APP 121/2010, LA APP 122/2010, LA \PP 125/2010, LA APP 164/2010, LA APP 185/200, LA APP 186/2010, LA APP 2Q0/2010, LAAPP' 238/2010, LAAPP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2010,. LA.APP. 247/2010, LA.APP. 25112010, LA..APP. : 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, •LA.APP. 274/2010, LA.APP. 275/2010; LA.APP. .• 312/2010, LAAPP 34/2010, L.A.APP 326/2010, A2J2.I L PP 3R9/2010, LA APP 330/2010, cL&PfT 331/2010 AAPP 332720101 LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL No 5524/2011, LAAPI 335/20101 LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010, LA.APP. 36912010, LA.APP. 371/2010 & CM APPL. No.20099/2010, LA.APP. 374/2010, LA.APP. 375/2010,? LA.APP. 377/2010, LA.APP. 379/2010, LA.AP. 423/2010, LA.APP.. 452/2010, LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/20111, LA APP

69.7j2010., LA.APP. 698/2010 & •CM APPL 1734/2011, LA..APP. • • .706/2010 & CM APPL. 17215/2010 LA.APP 707./2010;LAAPP. . .. 708/2010 LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL • . . . . No.2568/2011, LA.APP 713/2010 ith CM APPL. N.o7473/210.1 • LA.APP. 715/2010, LA.APP. 717/2010, LA.APP. 719/20101 LA.APP.. 766/2010, LA.APP. 796/2010, LA.APP. •. 797/2010; .LAAPP. 798/2010, LA.APP. 799/2010, LA.APP. 818'/2010, LA.APP. • 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APFL 6392/2011, LA.APP. 834/2010,. LA.APP. 42/2010, LA.APP. 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP .876/2010, LA.APP.: 877/2010, LA..APP.: 878/2010; LA.APP.., 879/2010, LAAPP 880/2010, LAAPP 881/2010 & CM • .. . •' APPL.6505j2011, LA.APP. 882/20I0; LA.APP. .883/2010, LA.APP. . * 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL.2249/2011, LA.APP. 890/2010, LA$PP. 893/2010 & CM APPL. 6750/2011, LA..APP. 894/2010 &..CM • No.23353/2.010, LA.APP. 85/2010, LA.APP., .896/2010, LA.APP.. . 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 939/2010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & C14 APPL 5673/2011, LA APP 1041/2010, LA APP 1043/2010, LA.APP. 1045/2010, LA.APP. 1046/2010, LA.APP. 1048/2010, LA.APP,

1.049/2010, LA.APP. 1050/2010; LAAPP. 1056/2010, LA APP 1060/2010, LA APP 1061/2010, LA APP 1071/2010, LA APP 125/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 3/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND + LA APP 600/2009, LA APP 605/2009, LA APP 615/2009, LA APP 310/2010, LA APP 325/2010, LA APP 376/2010, LA APP .383/2010,. LAAPP. 384/2010, . LA.APP. 385/2010, LA.APP, 473/2010, LA.APP. 492/2010, . LA.APP. 586/2010, LA.APP. 591/2010, LA.APP. 638/2010, ':LA.APP. 690/2010,. LA.APP. 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 763/201Q, LA.APP. 872/2010, LA.APP. 873/2010, LA.APP. 885/2010; LA.APP.' 887/20101 LA.APP. ' 891/2010, LA.APP, 892/2010, LA.APP. 89$/20104 LA.APP, 906/2.010 &CM APPL No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM APPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/20 10, LA APP 1047/20 10 (Relating to. Notification u/s dated

21.03.2003 .& Award: No.1/2005-06, Vil!age-Mündka)

AND LA APP 1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010, LA APP 1019/2010, LA.'APP. 1022/2010, LA..APP. 1023/2010, LA.APP. 1044/2010,'' LA.APP. 1051/2010, LA.APP. 1053/2010 1 LA.APP. 1054/2010 & M APPL.. '.No.5656/2011, LA. APP. . 1055/2010, LA.APP. 105/2010, LA.APP. 1058/2010, LA..AP,P. 1059/2010, LA.APP. 1068/2010; LA.APP. 1069/2010, LA.APP. , 124/2011, LA.APP' ' 127/2011, LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 LA APP 784/2005 & connected 2 The present decision concerns issçie of fixation tof fatt' market value of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakkarwal and village Mundka 3 The dates on which fair market value of the land has to be determined may be graphically noted as under:- ' S.Np ., Name of Village .Dteofnbtjfiation'ud.erI Section 4oftheLAAct 1 Bakkarwala 1, 244.2003

¶2Bakkarwala 17.6.2.005 .3. . Mundka . 2.2.1997 . .

21.3.2003 .

¶5. Mundka . .

17.6:2005' . . 4 It may be highlighted that the notification at serial No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate of Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-b, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards the other side of the Southern boundary of village Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of village Bakkarwala does not 'so abut bein.g on, the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundka S 6 As we proceed from the otyof. Delhi to the township of Rohtak village Mundka is crossed first, followed by, village Ghevra and. then village Tikri Kala. . . ', . ... . ..,.

7... . .. .. Agricultural lands in village. Mundka were acquired LA APP 784/2005 & connected Pages of 19 Government of NCT Delhi had fixed the minimum value for agricultural hands in Delhi i e 1.4.1997, but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price © 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Government had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitior Act was dated 25 2 1997 This was the value fixed for categor' A lands and for category B lands, with reference to the values for category A land depressed the same by 90,000/-. per acre. Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value © 9,89,288/- per acre and for . category B land the same was determined © Z8,,99,288/- per tre

1.4. Pertaining to the notifications :dated 21.3.2003 and 24 9 2003 whereunder agricultural lands in village Mundka and village Bakkarwala respectively were acquired,, the Reference Court took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as of 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the minimum price notified by the Governmer'it of NCT Delhi, the Reference Court adopted the principle of mean average. What the Réferencé Court did was to adopt the value . 4. as of 1

1.4.20 .01 and increasing the same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of, 21 3 200 as also

24.9.200.3.. Thereafter the Reference Court took'thë value notified as.of 30.8.2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected annum determiçied the sum arrived at as of 21.12003 2003 as also .24.9.2003,The two sums arrrved at were addeç and divided b' two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 203, which I nose comes to Z15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I note t1 sum arrivedat is 15,92,2I5/). FOr the date 24.9.2003 tfe price determined was 20,41,000I-per acre Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect frorn 1 4 2001 and giving increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in villae Mundk, oaccount of locatiofld.i. advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of, 17.6.2.005 in sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined was 20,35,255/- per acre In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of. the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve into the arguments advanced before me during hearing today

¶17With reference to the evidence, led In LAC ' No.384/2004 /amna Vs. 110/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh.L.B.Rai,. learned counsel for the appellant in LA App.•No.784/2005, whih argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared ,for the other appellants, that the learhed Trial JUdge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder, 11 bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected and 3 biswa of agricultural land in village Mundka was sold as of 5 8 1996 for a sale consideration of Z4,7 5 ,000/- 38,000/- was incurred towards sale duty and thus the price of the land would be 5,13,000I-and calculated with reference thereto, land prce per bigha would come to 4,46,000I-as of 5 8 1996 Learned counsel would urge that there is no reason not to hold that fair market value of agricultural lands in village Mundka was 4,46,000/- per bigha as of 5 8 1996 Taking the argument forward, it is urged that with reference to the said price, fair market value needs to; be determined as of25.2J993,,.

213.2003 and 17 6 2005, i e the dates when notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued pursuant S whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village Mundka, by increasing theprice progressively, if not by 12% per annum at least by 10% per annum It is urged that on the same basis, land price should be determined for the agricultural lands in village Bakkarwala Alternatively, Jit was urged that since villages Tikri Kalan, Mundka and Bakkirwal ar cbnguous villages, and in fact village Tikri Kalan is further towards the township of, Rohtak, some increase be made in the value of the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala with refeience to the judgment and decree dated 19 12 2008 deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA Appeal No 193/2006 Pratap Singh (Deceased) Thr. LR5 Vs 110/ as per which fair market value of land, per bigha, was determined in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 16 11 1995, 11 6 1996 and 17 12 2002 at 2,15,164/ for category A land LA APP 784/2005 & connected of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would corkede that the reasons given by the learned Reference Court are not sound, but would urge that the two cQntentions advanced by him should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why Ex P-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further urge that the four sale deeds Ex ft-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned Reference Court pertaining to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995,

30.5 1997, 4 6 1997 and 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOl would show the actual market value of the land and thus learned couriel would urge that the said fOur sale deeds shoul be S considered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected therein is less than the minimum price notified by the Government, the price fixation should be with reference to the minimum price notified by the Government which is nearest to the point of time when the respective notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

¶20An independent and alternätive arumeflt is also advanced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests itself on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 Ia' Singh Vs UQI The decision in /ai Singh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwal.a which were acquired pursuant to a. notification

dated 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I-per bigha Learned counsel would urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA APP 784/2005 & connected as Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed befOre the Supreme Court by either side' have been dismissed. Learned, counsel takes the argument forward by urging that by adopting the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I-per bigha, the fair market value should be ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per nnun' to determine . the market valud of land in viIlage Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 as also 17 6 2005 Learned counsel would urge that in view of the locational advantage of village Mundka, fair market value of land in villae Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 17.6.200 15, by giving . . 5% icrease: . . . With respect to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder 1 bigha and biswa of agricultural land j. was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would assume importance that the sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Secti.on 4 of the L.nd Acq.isition Act, whiàh was issued n

25.2.1997. It i s a matter of common knowledge that preceding

the publication of a notification upd.er Section 4. of the Lahd Acquisition Act, surveys are carried out with the object of determining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numb?rs and fields are required to be notified for the proposed, . acquisition and when this happens people in the area come to . know that very soon there is every likelihood that the. lands would be acquired In Delhi, the large scale acquisition poIRy enjoins upon the Government to allot, at pre determined rates,48 plot of developed residential land to the ones whose lands are LA.APP.784/2005 & connected . . . Page 13of 19 t .. ..,.. .. acquired and thus, it is not uncommon, for persons to purchase small parcels of lands in areas where acquisitions are likely to take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to be a representative measure of the fair market value of land as on the date of the sale. Further, the pri.ndples of rati. and proportion as also the principles 'of averages and the tell me that to be representative of the principles of sampling whole, a sample must bear at intelligible propçrtiOn to the whole. Thus, not for, the reaoning ad.vancd by the learned. Reference Court, but for the twin reasoning hitherto-fore noted, I hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidence wherefrom market value of the land could be determined There is an additional reason not to rely upon the said sale deed The sal deeds Ex R-1 to Ex R-4, dated 6 1 1995, 30 5 1997, 4.6.1 .997 and 89 1997 are also pertaining to Village Mindka and reflect a sale price much lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, the.

sale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less thab even the minimum price for agricultural land 1h Delhi notified by the Government Thus, the fair market value of the lands would b required to be fixed either with reference to the decision of thi Court in JI 5/nq cas.e (supra) or La. Sinqh's case (supra). I highlight that both decisions, peflned b y the,DivisiOfl Bench of this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court The decision in Jai SIng/17's case (supra) determiflecl fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwa!a in sum of 1,32,000/- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and the perusal thereof LA.APP.784/2005 & tonnected would show that the Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed betwen the years 1990.ti11 the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or Village 1'1undka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, dale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala In Pratap S,rgh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concernédwfth agNcultural lands in.Tikri Kalan and änothe adjoining Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under:- . . . . . . . SNO. Date .Villag.e PHce.per Bigha

.24.07.1995 & Tikri.Kaian 2,15,160/- fOr.BIock

16.11.1995 . . A & 1,73,500/ for, • • . . • BlockB.land

11.06.1996 •Tik Kalan • .& 2,35,81:5/- fOr Blok • • • ' • • Ghevra • . 'A & p1,90,156/- fr ,BlckB land •

3.

17.12.2002 Tikri Kãlan Z4,02,850/- for Block • ' . . . ;. . H 'A. & 3,.24,850'/- for' Block B land: Acquisition Appeal No 489/2009, Chirnji La! Anon2.6.2011 have detrmined the fair market vaIue 0f the lands in Village Ghevra at 4,03,425I-per bigha as of 6 2 2003 On the issue of comparabilitY of . land in village BakkarWala with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no doubt true that whereas village BakkarWala does not abut NH-lU, as do the other villages, but it has to be highlighted that it is more proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-a-V1S Ghevra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 villages, has an advantage Since exactness can never be achieved in the matters of assessing fair compensation1 it is the broad probabilities a n d..,.

. similarities which matter. Thus, I hold all 4 villages to be • equivalent, unless qua some lad special features can be shown. 28 Since the decision in Pratap .ingh' case (supra) deals notifications more proximate in point of time to the with notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, fair and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am cocerned In relation to the fair • market value of lands determined in PraapS/g case'(SUPra). As per the decision 1n patap5pqh case (supra) for the date

24.7.1995, for CategorY A lands faft compepSatiQn assessed was • • • 2,l5,160/- per bigha nd• 1,73,500/-.per blgh.fO Category B land. The first notification with which I am concerned i ,•

25.2.1997 whereunder lands in Village. Myndka we acquired. The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 ieSS-ZdBYS In Pratap Sigh'. case (supra) the apnqalJfl(1ea5e was determined to be 10% per annum (flat) Thus, pertaining to Category A . LA.APP.784/2005 & connected • • • lands, the fair market value assessed is 2,49,408 75 per bigha I e 11,97,162/- per acre and for. Category. B lands, I assess the fair , market value at !2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. T9, 65,361 60 per, acre

¶29The next nOtification with which I am concerned. dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mundka In Chiranh' Lal's cas (supra), with reference to the decision in Pra ja Sincjh's case (supra), for gricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a notification isued. under Section 4 of the Lan.d Acquisition Act. on 6.2.2003 the fair market value asesse. was4.03,4SI-per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of just a little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertaining to the notification dated 21 .3.2003, fair market value of land in S. Village ..Mundka should bp T4,03,425/- i.e. 19,3440I-pr acre • which I hèrebyfix. . I propose to deal with the notification dated 24 9 2003, a dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 fter pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala As noted here;nabo\?e, in Chiranhi Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6 2 2003, fair market value assessed by me was 443425I-per bigha and thus, increasing S the same by 10% for 2 sears and 131 days, the figure comes to 4,98,589I-per bigha, which com.es 4 to 23,93,227 20 per p cre The same is held by me to be the fair market value of land in Village Mundka and Village BakkarwIa as of 17.6.2005. 1 .dcree S the same 17 of 19 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page

$-54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.331/2010 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Ms.Deepika, Advocate versus DEVINDER SINGH Respondent Through: Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate for R-1 • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG